Wednesday, August 30, 2006

As we all know, IANSA struck out at the big UN disarmament conference earlier this summer, but, I guess it's only natural that they'd take another shot, so to speak, at our natural rights (and how ironic it is that as I type this, I am hearing a commercial for Jim Pruett's Guns & Ammo and the concealed-carry class he offers, maybe that's a sign)...

Examining the use of guns by civilians and armed groups, the UN Special Rapporteur concludes that there is no 'right' to self-defence under international human rights law. When someone uses a gun in self-defence, they can only use the principle of self-defence to establish that they have not committed a crime (eg their life was in danger). Even if there were a 'right' to self-defence, this does not affect governments' responsibility to prevent guns being misused.

Recommendations include licensing of private gun possession to prevent guns being used to violate human rights. In particular, the Special Rapporteur concludes that governments have a duty to protect the groups most vulnerable from gun violence, including victims of domestic violence.

In order to ensure the protection of human rights by preventing small arms violence by private actors, Governments shall enact licensing requirements to prevent possession of arms by persons who are at risk of misusing them....

Governments shall ensure that proper controls are exercised over the manufacturing of small arms through incorporation into national law and by other measures.

The principle of self-defence has an important place in international human rights law, but does not provide an independent, supervening right to small arms possession, nor does it ameliorate the duty of States to use due diligence in regulating civilian possession. Rather, as this report shows, there are wide areas where States should, can, and do regulate possession of firearms consistent with principles of self-defence. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the life of others. It is the basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. International law does not support an international legal obligation requiringStates to permit access to a gun for self-defence. The principle of self-defence does not negate the due diligence responsibility of States to keep weapons out of the hands of those most likely to misuse them. The State has particularly acute obligations to protect vulnerable groups, including victims of domestic violence, from abuses with small arms.

Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations applies to States acting in self-defence against armed attacks against their State sovereignty. It does not apply to situations of self-defence for individual persons.

So, if you'll pardon my french, it looks like they're taking the bullshit to a new level -- now they say we have no right of self-defense, they're back with the same statist solution of gun licenses, and ever more government regulation of the gun industry. Never mind that whole "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the natural right of self-defense bestowed on us by our very existence, the free market or anything like that. And, of course, the rights of the all-powerful State take precedence over the rights of the individual, never mind various States' horrendous record vis-a-vis disarmed citizenry over just the 20th century alone. Just like the domestic disarmament lobbies (Bradys, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, VPC, etc.), these people have their own reality that bears no resemblance to the one the rest of us live in, and, like the domestic disarmament lobbies, these people are also going to have to be stopped. My NRA membership is up for renewal. I might just have to kick in a few extra bucks...it would be money well-spent.

Unorganized Militia Propaganda Corps

About Me

I am a very opinionated guy, Texan and quite proud of it. I lean toward the right politically but have a few libertarian tendencies that my conservative brothers and sisters might not agree with. I like guns, old country music and a lot of other things.

Essential Reading

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty -- so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator -- and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.-- Cesare Beccaria, in On Crimes And Punishments, later quoted by Thomas Jefferson

Echo

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.-- Alexander Hamilton